I'm still a beginner in Greek, making good progress. But I often wonder if it would've been better to have chosen Latin instead. Seems like there would be many more books written in Latin than Classical Greek.

Hello Bob,
My primary interest lays in reading history. Latin extends from the Roman period to the renaissance, good thousand years or so. Whereas Classical Greek about one hundred years or so.
I don't know, just some thoughts.

He said "reading" not just studying in any language, and "primary" interest not only. That leaves more than enough room to wish to further reading experiences with learning great languages, through which much great history may be read.

As to your question, giga phobere, my own experience has been Latin into Greek, and Latin's familiarity relative to Greek has made acquiring Greek, which is very similar to Latin yet rather alien to English, much easier. Of course, you ought to learn both, since they are so rewarding to know.

gigas phoberos wrote:Hello Bob,My primary interest lays in reading history. Latin extends from the Roman period to the renaissance, good thousand years or so. Whereas Classical Greek about one hundred years or so. I don't know, just some thoughts.

Why only a hundred years for Greek? Even for history, you have historians like Laonicus Chalcondyles writing in the 15th century about the fall of Constantinople -- and writing in Classical Greek that is.

Actually, Albert Einstein did the job and I'm a physics teacher at a high school.

Einstein had reportedly hated his authoritarian classical education in Gymnasium. But I don't think he hated the classical language education so much. For he used loads of greek letters in his relativity papers later.

Nope When it comes to studying history you either need to study a whole lot of different languages to be able to read the sources in their original form or you can be lazy and choose one of the many, wonderful translations out there.
I am not saying it's a bad thing. Far from it. I am just saying that if the primary reason is learning history and the others are of really secondary importance I don't see why go through the trouble of learning such a complicated language.

gigas phoberos wrote:Hello Bob,My primary interest lays in reading history. Latin extends from the Roman period to the renaissance, good thousand years or so. Whereas Classical Greek about one hundred years or so. I don't know, just some thoughts.

Why only a hundred years for Greek? Even for history, you have historians like Laonicus Chalcondyles writing in the 15th century about the fall of Constantinople -- and writing in Classical Greek that is.

Now you see? That's why I come here to learn from those who know much more than I! I didn't know about Laonicus Chalcondyles or any other "post classical" writer who wrote in Classical Greek. Thanks for the info.

Okay so let me re-phrase my question, is there a large and rich source of historical literature written in Classical Greek that continues after the classical period into the dark-ages, middle ages and renaissaince like there is for Latin?

gigas phoberos wrote:Okay so let me re-phrase my question, is there a large and rich source of historical literature written in Classical Greek that continues after the classical period into the dark-ages, middle ages and renaissaince like there is for Latin?

This is actually a trickier question than you might imagine. The cultivation of Classical Greek post-classically was highly dependent on the fortunes of the Roman, and then the Byzantine, empire. (See Atticism for ancient beginnings). When the empire was stable and doing well, education was good and something quite like classical Attic was produced. When education was at a low point, less such material was produced.

Except for a few commentaries on classical works, I've not really spent too much time on seriously post-classical, but Atticist, Greek. I get the impression this is still a largely untapped field.

gigas phoberos wrote:Hello Bob,My primary interest lays in reading history. Latin extends from the Roman period to the renaissance, good thousand years or so. Whereas Classical Greek about one hundred years or so. I don't know, just some thoughts.

Given that the "Roman" period you cite includes about 1000 years of East Roman history - with much untranslated still- you will eventually need at least some medieval Greek. Attic is the best place to start.

I'm no physicist but as a young man I fell under the spell of Arthur Koestler's 'The Sleepwalkers' whose main hero is Kepler but which also highlights the role of Aristarchus as daddy of the heliocentric system. I still think of Aristarchus when I look at the night sky.

Is there a text relating to Aristarchus suitable for (near-)beginners?

I'm no physicist but as a young man I fell under the spell of Arthur Koestler's 'The Sleepwalkers' whose main hero is Kepler but which also highlights the role of Aristarchus as daddy of the heliocentric system. I still think of Aristarchus when I look at the night sky.

Is there a text relating to Aristarchus suitable for (near-)beginners?

Cheers,Int

Hello, Interaxe!
I'm not sure what other beginners than me would want to learn about Aristarchus. But for a simple explanation about him there're the wikipedia articles on him and on his work.

And I, beginner myself, had been searching for his original work in Greek, and the Wilbourhall.org website provides one in PDF, along with links to other ancient mathematical works.

Thanks a million for that great PDF, especially Aristarchus' Greek text + translation. It's a feast for a beginner like me. Words for 'moon', 'sun' and 'light' are like old friends.

A 3-hour partial eclipse of the moon last Saturday and the fact that lightning struck my laptop dead last Thursday (under my very nose, with a big flash!) only served to reinforce the fascination of celestial relationships and the sky we live in.

Seemingly, Aristarchus never witnessed an annular ('ring-encircled') solar eclipse. I call that interesting. The curious can read more about different types of solar eclipses at: